For CdM: Bullshit jobs

[Malthus]

Unfortunately, it is totally incorrect. 

I'll file that one under assertion along with "nuh uh".

Okay, then I'll add some substance to my jeering. 

Lawyers do not guard against the hazards created by other lawyers. They guard against the hazards created by other people, such as those whom the client is doing business with either voluntarily (as in contracts) or involuntarily (as in someone doing them an injury).

The notion that these hazards are dreamed up by lawyers and would not exist except for lawyers is, quite simply, bullshit that could only appeal to the childish mind who thinks that human nature is all fluffy kittens and unicorns farting rainbows. 

The notion that the lawyers, all 6 bajillion of them, do not contribute to the need for more lawyers, is so cutely naive that I don't even believe that you believe it.

Fallacy of over simplification.

... which, in your mind, did not apply to the post I was responding to? Interesting. 

[DGuller]

You aren't reading my posts. You are just reading the posts you imagine me making.

[Admiral Yi]

Joan, your discussion of the complexities of transactions in the modern age is very interesting, but what exactly is it's purpose?  You were discussing mechanisms to divide the net value pie.  What does this have to do with that?

[Jacob]

Joan, your discussion of the complexities of transactions in the modern age is very interesting, but what exactly is it's purpose?  You were discussing mechanisms to divide the net value pie.  What does this have to do with that?

The complexities of transactions in the modern age is, in large part, the mechanism that divides the net value pie?

[Admiral Yi]

How so?

[The Minsky Moment]

Joan, your discussion of the complexities of transactions in the modern age is very interesting, but what exactly is it's purpose? 

Responding to the argument made in the initial post.

You were discussing mechanisms to divide the net value pie. 

There is no mechanism per se.  At any given time there are endowments and wealth and ability, and there are rules that govern how people engage in production and consumption.  With those as givens, people interact with each other and what results - whether by design, random luck, or some combination of both -  is some new distribution of wealth and income.  Economics doesn't really have much to say about about that distributional result in a macro sense.  The best that can be said if one buys the Arrow-debreu axioms is that the government can't intervene in a way that makes everyone better off by mucking around with prices.  Economic theory can also suggest what kinds of distributional changes might be more or less efficient than others.  Beyond that there really isn't much to say.  And since there is nothing "natural" or presumptively just about the pre-existing endowments or social rules, there is no reason to accord the resulting outcomes any special deference.

[Jacob]

How so?

What Keynes said.

[Admiral Yi]

Of course there's no reason to award the market mechanism any special deference.  We're not talking about a clan talisman here, we're talking about a set of rules.  And the logical thing to do is to evaluate that set of rules in terms of its advantages and disadvantages compared to its alternatives.  That is the point I thought you were raising, and that is why I was puzzled by the relevance of the technical and legal complexity of your purchase of a game from Steam.